Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Extinct Animal Questions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 26 2013, 10:24 PM (193,272 Views) | |
| heliosphoros | Aug 21 2016, 01:23 PM Post #3331 |
![]() ![]()
|
Even ungulates were better at swimming with their tails than dinosaurs. |
![]() |
|
| 54godamora | Aug 21 2016, 05:51 PM Post #3332 |
![]() ![]()
|
ok which had the strongest bite force: carnotaurus, rajasaurus, albertosaurus, bistahieversor, daspletosaurus, or gorgosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Aug 21 2016, 05:58 PM Post #3333 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'd say either Daspleto or Bista based on skull anatomy, but I could be wrong. Definately not Carnotaurus tho, its bite was deadly more for the hit delivered than the power in the bite itself. |
![]() |
|
| 54godamora | Aug 21 2016, 06:04 PM Post #3334 |
![]() ![]()
|
so if you had to choose between bite force or just force? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 22 2016, 07:18 AM Post #3335 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Daspletosaurus for both. By quite a long way really. Purely by virtue of being most like, in terms of size, mechanics and shape, as everybody's favourite paleontological unit of measurement. Of the listed tyrannosaurs, it was the largest and most robust, rendering all the rest void. Compared with the given abelisaurs, their raw bite forces are by comparison, terrible. By theropod standards in general. Especially carnotaurus. Rajasaurus (assuming it looked like Majungasaurus) would have had at least some bite force to its name, having apparently applied a bite-and-hold kill method (their skulls were GREAT at resisting twisting and struggling compared to most theropods). When you add in vertical strikes (which was likely not implemented by majungasaurines), you still aren't going to necessarily get a strike which'll smash through solid slab of bone like a large tyrannosaurine would. |
![]() |
|
| BossMan, Jake | Aug 22 2016, 07:15 PM Post #3336 |
|
Son of God
![]()
|
What was the largest Compsagnathid? I always thought it was Huaxiagnathus but I guess it's not |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Aug 22 2016, 10:51 PM Post #3337 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
Isn't Opisthocoelicaudia thought to be aquatic as well? What on earth is up with that genus, anyway? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 23 2016, 04:03 AM Post #3338 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
It's speculated at least because of its unusually short legs and wide, barrel shaped body, which is often cited as a hippo-like set of features. It's not entirely unreasonable to suggest it spent some time in water - Nemegt was some sort of inland delta at the time. But at the same time, there's not much for it going beyond that superficial resemblance. As for the second question, do you mean taxonomically, or the name? Taxonomically, it's a saltasaurid, which is interesting when you consider that Alamosaurus is its nearest relative, and all other saltasaurids were South American. It gets more interesting still that it's entirely possible (and it's looking like the more accepted stance these days) that it and Nemegtosaurus are synonyms. If that is true, we don't have to worry anymore about such a horrible tongue twister of a name, since Nemegtosaurus's skull was found 6 years before... Oppanihistologicoleodontinauticalia... Was. As for the terrible name itself, it was named after its tail vertebrae, which were essentially backwards in construction - the front of each were convex, and the back concave. ALL other sauropods do the opposite. One of the rare occasions where Placenamesaurus is better, personally speaking.
Sinocalliopteryx was. The holotype was 2.37m, but the second one that was found in 2012 was larger still. Unfortunately, I can't get a measurement for it at the moment. They were VORACIOUS buggers though. Compare with Huaxiagnathus's 1.8m. |
![]() |
|
| 54godamora | Aug 25 2016, 10:37 PM Post #3339 |
![]() ![]()
|
this is odd, but what prehistoric animals would best represent the seven sins? |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 26 2016, 09:42 AM Post #3340 |
![]() ![]()
|
What? I'm sorry but, seriously? No offense, but can you ask some NORMAL questions for once? |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 26 2016, 11:14 AM Post #3341 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
I'll humour it, since for once it wasn't asked out of sheer laziness and could gave otherwise been solved with a 20 second google search. Let's see... Wrath = T. rex Gluttony = Puertasaurus Lust = Protoceratops Sloth = Mei Pride = Parasaurolophus Envy = Velociraptor Greed = Citipati Try that. Edit: Hang on, here's one that includes more than dinosaurs: Wrath = T. rex Gluttony = Xiphactinus Lust = Pteranodon Sloth = Mei Pride = Smilodon Envy = Velociraptor Greed = Argentavis Probably not as effective, but it spreads things out a bit more. Edited by Incinerox, Aug 26 2016, 11:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 26 2016, 11:38 AM Post #3342 |
![]() ![]()
|
I understand how most of them are good representations but the last two kind of confuse me. Care to explain?
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 26 2016, 11:55 AM Post #3343 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
I edited my post. I could be at this for HOURS. Velociraptor was envy because there are at least two occasions where it coveted the posessions of another animal, and got killed for it: > Assuming the Fighting Dinosaurs specimen didn't start the fight against that Protoceratops (the size difference is of note here), it could be implied it was going for a nest. > A velociraptor skull indicates it got killed by another individual in what was likely a territorial dispute. Citipati may have been caught hoarding the remains of Byronosaurus chicks, hence greed. But it may have been a victim of nest parasitism. It's not clear, but it was enough. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 26 2016, 01:44 PM Post #3344 |
![]() ![]()
|
You could also have Megatherium be sloth assuming you want it to be literal.
|
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 26 2016, 03:34 PM Post #3345 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
I mean, you COULD... But it's hard to top the species whose entire fossil representation are of sleeping specimens, whose name literally means "sleeping dragon". |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups












Care to explain?
